Ocean Shipping Reform Implementation Act of 2023

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 7023.

This bill significantly restricts the oversight and regulatory authorities of the EPA and Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act.

The Clean Water Act, enacted over 50 years ago, is the Nation's bedrock environmental law for restoring and maintaining the ``chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters'' and water resources.

However, the changes in H.R. 7023 defy the act's overarching intent and gut the independent authority of both agencies to ensure that projects and activities are carried out with only minimal impacts to water resources.

This partisan bill weakens clean water protections while providing exemptions, legal shields, and limited oversight to special interest polluters and large-scale projects that demand higher scrutiny.

The bill disregards congressional intent in establishing EPA's independent oversight authority over clean water permits, undermines permitting requirements, eliminates judicial review and public engagement, rolls back oversight of mining companies and industrial polluters, inadvertently slows down permit processing with increased bureaucracy, and complicates State-determined decisions.

Mr. Chairman, this bill would also significantly reduce remaining Clean Water Act protections over critical rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands that survived last year's Supreme Court ruling.

Not satisfied with the Court's Sackett decision that eliminated protections for more than 50 percent of the wetlands and up to 70 percent of the streams, this package of anti-clean water proposals would further hamstring the EPA's and Corps' abilities to operate independently to protect our Nation's waterways.

These proposals go in the wrong direction by giving even more to polluters and sacrificing the needs of communities that depend on clean water.

After Sackett, Congress should be working to restore the protections of the Clean Water Act that worked for over 50 years and to move H.R. 5983, the Clean Water Act of 2023, a bill that I have cosponsored with over 130 of my colleagues, to restore clean water protections over our waters, many of which serve as irreplaceable sources of water for families, our communities, our farms, our businesses, our industries, and our quality of life.

We have made too much progress in cleaning up the rivers and streams for Congress to give up now. Mr. Chairman, that is why I am opposed to the proposed changes in H.R. 7023 that weaken bedrock Clean Water Act protections.

The bill will add additional hurdles to EPA's ability to issue water quality standards. It will reduce, if not eliminate, opportunities for the public to seek redress when they are harmed by violations of the Clean Water Act. It would effectively eliminate EPA's ability to oversee and block dangerous projects.

Communities will not benefit from these changes, but mining companies, the oil and gas industry, and other toxic polluters will.

My colleagues would like to approve projects faster, but we need to ensure that projects are built with full consideration of the impacts to human health and the environment. I support the EPA and the Corps working with local communities, Tribes, and States to make these important decisions.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a copy of the minority views to H.R. 7023 that were cosigned by myself, Ranking Member Larsen, and an overwhelming majority of Democrats on the committee.

Minority Views

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides to vote ``no'' on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a copy of the Statement of Administration Policy in opposition to H.R. 7023, which states that this legislation will ``weaken the Clean Water Act, remove protections for waterways that are vital to the well-being of American families, and undermine ongoing, bipartisan efforts to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of infrastructure permitting processes.''

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 7023--Creating Confidence in Clean Water Permitting Act--Rep.

Rouzer, R-NC

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 7023, which would

weaken the Clean Water Act, remove protections for waterways

that are vital to the well-being of American families, and

undermine ongoing, bipartisan efforts to improve the

efficiency and effectiveness of infrastructure permitting

processes. The Administration is making historic investments

and taking unprecedented action to modernize and accelerate

permitting to ensure that infrastructure projects get

designed and built swiftly and in a way that reflects

community input and protects clean air, clean water, and

public health. H.R. 7023 would create uncertainty, confusion,

and conflict in permitting processes by: restricting

community input and environmental analysis and information

that is needed to inform Federal decisions to protect the

public; curtailing the Environmental Protection Agency's

ability to keep pollutants out of water supplies upon which

communities rely; and, weakening bedrock environmental

protections. H.R. 7023 is out of step with the type of

bipartisan permitting reforms that the Administration

supports and that Congress should pass.

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record letters in opposition to H.R. 7023, including a letter from 49 organizations expressing concern that legislation containing several misguided attacks on clean water in the Clean Water Act puts polluter profits ahead of public health and would jeopardize the water that our families, communities, businesses, and wildlife depend on.

March 18, 2024.

Re Oppose H.R. 7023, an attack on our clean water

protections.

Dear Representative: On behalf of our members and

supporters, the undersigned organizations urge you to oppose

H.R. 7023, the misleadingly named ``Creating Confidence in

Clean Water Permitting Act.'' This bill contains several

misguided attacks on clean water and the Clean Water Act,

puts polluter profits ahead of public health, and would

jeopardize the waters that our families, communities, and

wildlife depend on.

Numerous provisions of H.R. 7023 shield industrial

dischargers that would pollute or destroy our streams, lakes,

wetlands, and other waters from responsibility, thereby

imposing on downstream communities the burden of increased

pollution and flooding, to say nothing of the costs of

remedying those threats. In particular:

Section 2 would give polluters new ways to slow down the

Environmental Protection Agency's process for updating water

quality criteria. Criteria reflect EPA's assessment of the

scientific evidence about how pollutants in our waterways

adversely affect human health and aquatic life, and include

non-binding recommendations for water quality standards that

states can adopt to prevent those harmful effects. By

subjecting EPA's issuance of criteria to additional

administrative processes and opening them up to industry

lawsuits, this bill could delay improved protections

reflective of scientific developments--which is particularly

concerning for emerging contaminants.

Section 3 would authorize EPA to issue ``general'' permits

under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

program for industrial and municipal polluters. This new

authority lacks safeguards that Congress included in the

parallel general permitting program for ``dredge and fill''

activities, namely that the activities must have minimal

adverse environmental impacts. It also would greatly limit

EPA's ability to terminate such a permit if the agency

determined it was causing unacceptable harm to the

environment.

Section 4 would make it easier for industrial operations to

dump PFAS, also known as ``forever chemicals,'' and other

emerging contaminants into the nation's waters without

accountability. Specifically, the bill would shield

dischargers from Clean Water Act liability even if they are

aware of certain pollutants in their waste streams but do not

disclose it to pollution control officials who do not have

reason to expect such contaminants.

Section 5 would virtually eliminate EPA's ability to stop

mammoth polluting projects like the Pebble Mine in Alaska's

Bristol Bay watershed. This rarely-used authority (invoked

only 14 times in the Act's history) is crucial to prevent the

most egregious projects from destroying precious fisheries,

drinking water supplies, and other resources.

Section 6 would require the Army Corps of Engineers to

permanently retain a fast-track permit for highly destructive

and polluting oil and gas pipelines and greatly weaken the

Corps' nationwide permitting program--a program that is

already far too lax in preventing and mitigating the harm

caused by projects that fill in the nation's waters. The bill

would double the duration of general permits, such that

advancements in best practices for the dozens of activities

covered by such permits would not be required promptly. And

it would excuse the Army Corps of Engineers from considering

the full environmental consequences of permitted activities,

as well as the effects of such activities on endangered

species.

Section 7 would prevent effective judicial review of

projects that fill in and destroy wetlands, streams, and

other waters. The bill would impose an impractically short

statute of limitations on court review of ``dredge and fill''

permits, which would likely force concerned citizens to file

suit on more permits in order to preserve their rights, in

many instances before the impacts of the permitted project

are fully understood. The bill would also severely hamstring

courts' authority to provide a remedy for illegal permits

because permits found unlawful would ordinarily remain in

effect and allow continued harm to water resources while the

Army Corps of Engineers reexamines them.

In contrast to these provisions, polling continues to show

that people actually want stronger federal protections for

our nation's waters. Too many communities, especially

Indigenous communities, communities of color, and low wealth

communities, still lack clean water. Congress should be

focused on putting people before polluters and working to

ensure everyone, no matter their race, zip code, or income,

has access to clean water, rather than attempting to

undermine our critical clean water protections.

Again, we urge you to VOTE NO on H.R. 7023, an attack on

our clean water safeguards that would endanger the waters our

families and communities depend on and work against the Clean

Water Act's objective ``to restore and maintain the chemical,

physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.''

Sincerely,

Alabama Rivers Alliance; Alliance for the Great Lakes;

American Rivers; Amigos Bravos; Appalachian Trail

Conservancy; Bayou

City Waterkeeper; Center for Biological Diversity; Center for

Food Safety; Children's Environmental Health Network; Clean

Water Action; Clean Wisconsin; Committee on the Middle Fork

Vermiliom River; Community Water Center; Earthjustice;

Environmental Justice Health Alliance; Environment America.

Environmental Law & Policy Center; Environmental Protection

Network; Food & Water Watch; For Love of Water (FLOW);

Freshwater Future; GreenLatinos; Izaak Walton League of

America; Kentucky Waterways Alliance; Latino Farmers &

Ranchers International, Inc.; Lawyers for Good Government;

League of Conservation Voters; Maryland Pesticide Education

Network; Massachusetts Pollinator Network; Massachusetts

Rivers Alliance; Mississippi River Collaborative; National

Audubon Society.

National Wildlife Federation; National Resources Defense

Council; New Mexico Wild; Northwest Center for Alternatives

to Pesticides; Ohio River Foundation; People and Pollinators

Action Network; PolicyLink; River Network; Sierra Club;

Southern Environmental Law Center; Surfrider Foundation; The

Water Collaborative of Greater New Orleans; Toxic Free North

Carolina; Waterkeeper Alliance; Waterkeepers Chesapeake; WE

ACT for Environmental Justice; We the People of Detroit.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Sykes).

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record two letters expressing opposition to H.R. 7023 and its efforts to reopen Federal protections of pristine salmon habitat within and around Bristol Bay, Alaska, including a letter from the Bristol Bay Defense Fund and the United Tribes of Bristol Bay.

January 30, 2024.

Re Oppose Anti-404(c) Clean Water Act Legislation

Hon. Sam Graves,

Chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Rick Larsen,

Ranking Member of the House Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

To the Honorable Members of the House Transportation and

Infrastructure Committee: On behalf of the Bristol Bay

Defense Fund, we write in opposition to the ``Reducing

Permitting Uncertainty'' language amending Section 404(c) of

the Clean Water Act, which would eviscerate the Environmental

Protection Agency's (EPA) authority to prohibit, restrict,

deny, or withdraw permits for destructive projects that would

pollute our nation's water resources. These changes to

Section 404(c) are a direct attack on the nation's clean

water, Clean Water Act, and the EPA. While purporting to

streamline the permitting process for development projects,

these changes to Section 404(c) would threaten the very

foundation of environmental protection for our nation's

wetlands and aquatic ecosystems, compromising their

ecological integrity and ultimately impacting water quality,

public health, and economic stability.

The provisions of H.R. 7206, Amendment to H.R. 7023, or any

similar anti-404(c) language would gut the EPA's ability

under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act to stop giant

polluting projects that would have an unacceptable adverse

effect on municipal water supplies, fisheries, wildlife, and

recreational areas like the proposed Pebble Mine in Bristol

Bay, Alaska. By limiting the EPA to as little as 30 days to

invoke its 404(c) authority, H.R. 7206 would eliminate any

meaningful opportunity for review by the public (including

the project proponent) and would preclude the EPA from

conducting the type of careful analyses that have supported

previous 404(c) determinations. H.R. 7023 would similarly

eviscerate the EPA's authority.

These anti-404(c) provisions ignore the EPA's rare and

judicious use of Section 404(c), invoked only 14 times in the

Clean Water Act's 52-year history. They represent a blatant

attempt to green light and fast track even the most egregious

projects that would destroy our Nation's water resources.

The Clean Water Act stands as a testament to our Nation's

commitment to protecting our precious water resources.

Weakening Section 404(c) would be a detrimental step

backward, compromising environmental health, public well-

being, and economic stability. We urge you to oppose these

provisions or any similar language that would hobble the

EPA's ability under Section 404(c) to limit the most

devastating projects from destroying our nation's fisheries,

drinking water, and other natural resources.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward

to working with you to safeguard our precious water resources

for the benefit of all Americans.

Sincerely,

Bristol Bay Defense Fund.

United Tribes of Bristol Bay.

Commercial Fishermen for Bristol Bay.

Businesses for Bristol Bay.

SalmonState.

Wild Salmon Center.

Native American Rights Fund.

Natural Resources Defense Council.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Scholten).

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman), the ranking member of the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, clean water was not always a partisan issue, and no issue has more support among American families than the protection of our Nation's waters.

Now is the worst time to lower our guard on protecting clean water, as recent years have shown major water challenges across the U.S. such as drought in the West, floods in the East, and water contamination in many States.

We need to be doing everything to ensure our cities, our businesses, and our farmers have sufficient, safe, and sustainable supplies of water to meet our economic and agricultural needs, our quality-of-life needs, and our day-to-day survival. I have dedicated much of my time in Congress to protecting our critical water supplies and making sure we capture, use, and reuse every available drop of water in our communities, and I do not plan to stop now.

Recent public surveys in the West have found that residents are more concerned than ever about inadequate water supplies. Almost 9 in 10 Westerners say that inadequate water supply is a serious problem in their State.

This is especially true in my home State of California. As the Metropolitan Water District commented to our subcommittee 1 year ago, a strong and clear Clean Water Act is important to the day-to-day operations of water agencies and source water protection efforts.

Congress should be reinstating protections to the Clean Water Act that the Supreme Court removed to continue to protect our streams and wetlands that have been protected since the inception of the act.

Streams, rivers, and wetlands are critical to capturing and storing rain and snowmelt to ensure a long-term supply of water and to recharge our underground aquifers; yet, this bill limits or eliminates protections over waters that provide the source of drinking water to over 117 million Americans.

Yes, there is a cost to protecting our communities, our sources of drinking water, and our environment. However, that cost should be borne by those seeking to pollute our waterways or fill our wetlands for their own personal gain, rather than transferring that cost to Americans or to downstream States.

This bill would increase levels of pollution in our water bodies, increase risk of downstream flooding, and increase certainty that communities like mine cannot maintain sustainable sources of drinking water.

Worst of all, hardworking American families would have to pay for the pollution caused by others.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose H.R. 7023, I urge my colleagues to vote against it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment clarifies that nothing in this act affects the existing ban on oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes.

Legislation banning the issuing of new drilling permits in the Great Lakes was passed in 2005 with support from both parties.

While legislation before us does undermine Clean Water Act protections, it does not affect the existing ban on drilling in the Great Lakes.

Republicans would like to call this week energy week, so let's look at the state of American energy today. Despite what you hear on the other side of the aisle, we are experiencing a record oil boom in the United States--a record oil boom.

There is no war on oil. The United States is the largest crude oil producer in the world, outpacing Russia, Saudi Arabia, and other OPEC countries.

Last fall, President Biden had approved more permits for oil and gas drilling on public lands than the previous President had at the same point in his Presidency.

Through passage of the bipartisan infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act, President Biden and House Democrats are addressing both the immediate needs for affordable gas prices for consumers as well as the long-term investments in a clean energy future that will also tackle the climate crisis.

Already since the Inflation Reduction Act's passage, 292 major clean energy projects have been announced that would create over 100,000 jobs across the country.

Just like America can dominate both oil production and clean energy deployment, we can promote American energy while also ensuring protection of our environment.

I have no objection to the amendment or its adoption.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, though I am not opposed.

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. James).

Communities across the Nation have learned firsthand of the human health risks associated with forever chemicals such as PFAS, a pollutant that is found in wastewater of municipal treatment works as well as in industrial discharges.

EPA is actively addressing PFAS concerns both by pushing to identify and limit large-scale industrial discharges of PFAS to treatment systems as well as developing an enforcement discretion policy for municipalities that may simply have PFAS chemicals in their sewage through no fault of their own.

While I share the gentleman's concern about the health risks of PFAS, I would point out that the underlying bill may create greater incentives for discharges to underreport or look the other way when it comes to PFAS discharges.

Since 1994, EPA has had in place a ``permit shield'' policy that provides dischargers with legal protection if they are applied for in good faith, and with honest disclosures of all pollutants potentially contained in the discharge.

However, the underlying bill codifies an expanded version of the permit shield, applicable to any discharger, whether a municipal treatment plant, a mining site, or industrial discharger regardless of whether they have made good-faith disclosures of all pollutants.

EPA has indicated that this expanded permit shield creates a disincentive for permittees to identify pollutants that are part of their waste stream during the development of their permit, including

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Moolenaar).

Mr. Chair, for over 50 years, the Federal-State partnership created by the Clean Water Act has allowed communities to enjoy clean water and has given businesses the certainty they need to create jobs and spur economic growth.

Yet, if this amendment becomes law, both EPA and every State who has taken on responsibility for implementing the Clean Water Act would have to deny clean water permits for any--I underscore any--facility or activity associated with a foreign government of concern.

That means that any U.S. subsidiary of a company with economic ties to China, Russia, or any other foreign country of concern would, by statute, be denied the ability to operate and expand in this country if their activities trigger Clean Water Act review.

I know Representative Moolenaar is concerned about the announced $2.3 billion investment in the State of Michigan that is likely to create an additional 2,350 good-paying jobs, and that Michigan Governor Whitman has called `` . . . the biggest ever economic development project in northern Michigan. . . . ''

However, this amendment is not limited to Michigan. How many other U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies will also be caught up in this amendment?

How will the General Electric appliance manufacturing plants in Kentucky, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, and South Carolina continue to operate if this amendment is adopted? GE Appliances is a subsidiary of a Chinese-owned company.

How will this amendment affect Smithfield Foods' operations in Maryland and Virginia if these facilities are

forever denied clean water permits because of their association with a Chinese owner?

Motorola is one of the world's leading manufacturers of smartphones; however, this Chinese-owned company has numerous offices and manufacturing facilities throughout the U.S., including a new 136,000- square-foot facility in Richardson, Texas.

Will the Moolenaar amendment make it logistically impossible for Motorola to continue to operate in the U.S.?

House Democrats have been leading the charge to ensure that the Clean Water Act continues to accomplish both goals--clean water and job creation.

House Democrats will continue to build a strong record of sustainable job creation and support of domestic manufacturing.

Prohibiting the issuance of Clean Water Act permits for projects that have investment from certain foreign entities is likely to be unimplement able, will increase the potential for litigation and delay, and ultimately only threatens clean water.

Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment and encourage my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bean).

Mr. Chair, the Clean Water Act was specifically enacted as a Federal-State partnership.

Today, EPA has approved 47 States to implement the point source discharge program under section 402 of the Clean Water Act. Their status as coregulators makes comprehensive implementation of the programs possible.

However, far fewer States have sought approval to regulate the discharge of dredge and fill materials under section 404 of the act, with only New Jersey and Michigan currently approved to implement this authority.

This amendment is directly related to whether Florida followed the rules in seeking approval of its own section 404 program.

Recently, a Federal district court struck down the previous administration's approval of Florida's 404 permit authority on the grounds that both State and Federal agencies failed to follow the rules in approving the State's program.

I am not opposed to the State of Florida or any State seeking to manage 404 authority within its border. However, this amendment seeks to legislatively mandate approval of a program, without changes, that was adopted without proper oversight and review.

The State of Florida can pursue implementing a 404 program, but through the proper approval process, and Congress should not mandate a program that has been deemed deficient by the courts.

Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment and encourage my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, House Democrats support including local input in the development of large-scale infrastructure projects directly affecting local communities. During committee consideration of this bill, we opposed attempts to curtail local input.

This amendment is another example of curtailing local input to push through large-scale projects. However, this amendment picks winners and losers for what types of projects get to be jammed through the process.

I proudly supported the investments in our infrastructure and clean energy future contained in the bipartisan infrastructure law, the Chips and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act last Congress. These critical bills were about creating jobs, advancing infrastructure investments, and accelerating the economy of the future.

House Democrats are committed to improving the quality of life for all Americans by building the economy from the middle out and bottom up. However, this amendment gives a fast lane for Clean Water Act permits to fossil fuel-related linear infrastructure projects.

It purposefully excludes renewable energy projects, including solar and wind, and other clean energy alternatives that benefited from the Inflation Reduction Act. It also excludes efforts to bolster energy reliability and resilience and nationwide efforts to upgrade the Nation's energy grid. I suspect this is why several energy companies, including the American Clean Power Association, Edison Electric, and the Chamber of Commerce are also opposed to this amendment.

Again, I remain concerned that under H.R. 7023, local voices are excluded from the development of linear projects generally. Adding Mr. Graves' amendment, which doubles down on the fast-tracking of fossil fuel-related energy infrastructure, only strengthens my opposition to the underlying bill.

Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, as well. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a ridiculous waste of our time. It will do nothing to lower costs for the American people. It will do nothing to grow our economy. It will do nothing to help us continue our goal of leading the world in the clean energy transition. It will do nothing to combat the worsening climate crisis.

This resolution does absolutely nothing. It is nothing more than a long list of fabricated grievances against the Biden administration and against the important work that congressional Democrats have accomplished over the last few years.

It reads as if Republicans just fed their same old dirty energy talking points into ChatGPT and asked it to spit out a resolution.

Instead of focusing on real solutions to bring down energy costs for Americans, House Republicans are working to pass this meaningless resolution that falsely claims the Biden administration is anti- American energy, that that is what their policy is.

Let's look at the facts. The United States is currently producing more energy than ever before in its history. That includes energy from all sources--solar, wind, and, yes, more oil and gas than ever before.

While we are doing this, we are also making incredible progress in addressing carbon emissions and air pollution. Last year, emissions in the United States fell by 2 percent, even as the GDP grew by 2.4 percent.

Why are Republicans complaining? Why are they upset about the fact that we found a way to pursue energy security while also lowering energy costs for American families, boosting our economy, and tackling the worsening climate crisis, all at the same time?

I am going to tell you why--because Republicans don't want anything to stand in the way of their oil and gas friends. They refuse to deviate from their polluters over people agenda, and they are wasting floor time on meaningless resolutions and bills that won't go anywhere because they are simply not capable of governing.

This Republican Congress is the least productive of any Congress since the Great Depression. They don't have any new ideas or solutions. Instead, they just continue to gravitate to their comfort zone, which is doing the bidding of the oil and gas industry.

President Biden and congressional Democrats have taken a drastically different approach. In stark contrast to Republicans' polluters over people agenda, Democrats are fighting to lower American energy bills, grow our middle class with new, good-paying clean energy jobs, and combat the worsening climate crisis.

Through the bipartisan infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act, we have seen clean energy projects growing all over the country. New manufacturing facilities are making EVs, batteries, and other clean energy technologies, and they are all booming because of crucial investments from these two bills.

This leads to emission reductions, energy production, and, of course, important new jobs. It is revitalizing communities across the country, with more than 271,000 clean energy jobs created since the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act.

In fact, the sponsor of this resolution will get to witness the power of these investments in his own district in Washington State. Two companies backed by bipartisan infrastructure law investments of $100 million are building next-generation EV battery plants in Washington State, in his district, and are expected to create hundreds of new jobs.

It is not just the State of Washington that is benefiting. Over half of the Inflation Reduction Act's projects are located in congressional districts represented by Republicans, totaling more than 144,000 new jobs and over $262 billion in investments.

We are growing the economies in their districts, yet Republicans continue to complain.

Republicans often talk about the Biden administration's so-called war on energy. They mentioned it today. I honestly have no idea what they are talking about. American energy production is breaking records. Gas prices have remained stable over the last year. The Energy Information Administration has forecasted that Americans are paying less for heating costs this year than they did last year.

Other countries--and often our competitors--are investing rapidly in clean energy. If we pause our important work, we will fall behind.

If Republicans have their way, we will stop competing, stop investing in the booming clean energy economy, and simply recommit to expensive, polluting fossil fuels as the way forward.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this do-nothing resolution, and I urge my colleagues across the aisle to come up with better things for all of us to do with our time, not waste our time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Crockett).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I heard the sponsor of this resolution, the gentleman from Washington State, mention and make reference to Ukraine and then to LNG exports. Let me say, the only thing that is holding up aid to Ukraine is the Republican leadership.

The Speaker at any time could bring up a bill providing funding for military purposes and supplies in Ukraine, and it would pass this House overwhelmingly. I don't know why he isn't doing it. However, for them to suggest on the other side of the aisle that somehow we are not helping Ukraine, that is their fault because they refuse to bring up the spending bill that will allow that to happen. It is not happening this week. Then we are going to go on a 2-week break, and it is still not happening. They are running out of ammunition in Ukraine to defend themselves against Putin.

I will also mention the gentleman's reference to LNG exports. Again, Republicans are ignoring the facts that don't conform with their narrative.

The U.S. has become the number one exporter of LNG worldwide in just a few short years, and there is enough already approved liquefied natural gas export permits for us to triple our export capacity without issuing a single additional permit.

This level of production, according to a letter sent by over 60 European Union lawmakers, will meet the energy needs of our allies in Europe for years to come. We are supporting our allies. It is those on the other side of the aisle, the Republicans, who are not supporting our allies by not allowing legislation to come to the floor that will help Ukraine.

The White House has issued an LNG pause that serves as an opportunity to evaluate how the recent boom in LNG is contributing to greenhouse gas emissions, environmental pollution, and domestic energy price increases.

What we are saying here today--and this is what the Republicans ignore--is that this administration, the Biden administration, is increasing production, increasing production of oil and natural gas, addressing renewables, getting more solar out there, getting more wind out there, but at the same time making sure that our economy grows, that gas prices don't increase, and addressing the climate crisis.

The White House has this LNG pause because one study found that the rise in U.S. LNG exports over the past 3 years is contributing to higher energy bills for American families.

We also shouldn't ignore the public health impacts of unfettered fossil fuel development along our Gulf Coast. Study after study demonstrates a link between fossil fuel plants and adverse health outcomes. Louisiana's so-called Cancer Alley experiences low birth weights of three times the national average and preterm births at twice the national average.

I want to commend the administration for pausing new LNG permitting to examine these potential impacts. Again, the LNG exports are increasing. They are at a high. The European Union is benefiting from them.

Unfortunately, Ukraine is not benefiting at all because the House Republican leadership refuses to bring up legislation that would help Ukraine defend themselves.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, this resolution claims that the Biden administration has hampered the domestic production of energy and made the United States more reliant on other countries for its energy needs.

This could not be further from the truth. I want to be crystal clear to get this into the record: Under the Biden administration, the United States is producing more energy than it has at any other point in its history.

In fact, throughout the entirety of President Biden's term in office, the U.S. has produced more energy than it has consumed. He is the only President to have achieved that in my lifetime.

Last year, the United States added a record 33 gigawatts of solar capacity, fueled by the Inflation Reduction Act, which is lowering costs for Americans every day. We should be thanking President Biden for unleashing American energy.

Republicans can say whatever they want, but the facts don't lie. President Biden's energy policies are strengthening energy security and positioning us to compete globally all while reducing emissions. Please, I urge everyone to vote against the resolution.

Let me just say, this resolution is really flat out absurd in its attempt by extreme Republicans to mislead the American public.

The data shows that we are producing more energy. It is not just oil and gas. It is solar, it is more wind turbines, and it is exporting more gas and liquid fuels than ever before. Meanwhile, the administration is making significant progress in its effort to drive down planet warming air pollution.

Last year, U.S. emissions fell, as I said, by 2 percent even as the economy roared and GDP grew by 2.34 percent. These numbers are a clear indication that we can achieve a safer climate while bolstering energy security and job growth at the same time.

In the face of this climate crisis, the U.S. must continue to be a global leader in the clean energy transition and help our communities prevent further extreme weather and other climate impacts.

What we are seeing before us today with this resolution is the Republicans' polluters over people agenda. That is the reality. It is a policy that is outlined in this resolution that risks derailing the immense progress that President Biden has made since taking office.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I can't emphasize enough that what we are seeing with this President and this administration is an effort to increase energy production across the board and at the same time become a global leader on addressing the climate crisis.

Let us continue with that. Let us build on that. Don't take us back. That is what this resolution would do. It would take us back.

Madam Speaker, I encourage everyone to vote against this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1085, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 987) denouncing the harmful, anti-American energy policies of the Biden administration, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 987.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 987 to denounce the harmful anti-American energy policies of the Biden administration, led by Congressional Western Caucus Chairman Dan Newhouse.

From day one, the Biden administration has waged war on American energy. Their actions and policies have jeopardized our grid security, caused America to become more dependent on foreign adversaries like Iran, Russia, China, Venezuela, and others, and increased energy costs for everyday Americans.

Energy is foundational to everything in American life. American energy

powers our country, employs our workers, and drives our economy.

When the cost of energy goes up, so does everything else. Since President Biden took office, the administration has taken over 170 regulatory actions to make it harder to produce and deliver American energy.

President Biden and House Democrats are doing everything in their power to regulate American energy workers out of existence, and they don't care how it negatively impacts communities in South Carolina or any other State around the country. They are putting the needs of the radical climate lobby over hardworking Americans.

Americans know gas prices hit a 4-month high this week, with a national average of $3.46 a gallon. In May 2023, it was calculated that nearly 20 million households in the United States were behind on their utility bills. That means they couldn't pay them or were having trouble paying them.

In President Biden's first 26 months in office, energy prices increased roughly 27.2 percent, the largest increase of any of the past seven administrations.

President Biden's policies have directly contributed to these unaffordable energy bills. He started his first day in office by canceling the Keystone pipeline, eliminating the potential for 11,000 energy sector jobs.

He continues to block domestic mineral development while simultaneously forcing a rush to green agenda, which makes the United States reliant on foreign countries like China that use child labor, have inhumane working conditions, and do their mining in a very environmentally insensitive way.

To distract from high energy prices, President Biden directed the largest drawdown of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the Nation's history.

Now, the SPR, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, is there for national emergencies--in time of war, hurricane, and other natural disasters. He drew it down for political purposes.

Under Democratic control, the SPR has been drained to its lowest level since 1980 as an election year gimmick. It puts America at risk, though, not having that Strategic Petroleum Reserve available.

President Biden's anti-American energy policies know no end. They are taxing natural gas, blocking pipelines, banning LNG exports, which help American producers but also help our friends and allies around the globe, and imposing aggressive EPA regulations.

Just yesterday, the Biden administration announced a rule that would mandate that nearly two-thirds of new vehicles must be all-electric by 2032, regardless of cost, functionality, or consumer choice, which should drive the market for automobile production.

Congressman Newhouse's resolution denounces these policies and encourages domestic energy production of reliable and affordable energy sources.

Republicans have solutions, and those solutions will reverse the Biden administration's war on energy. The House recently passed H.R. 7176, the Unlocking our Domestic LNG Potential Act, to reverse the Biden LNG export ban.

We also will be taking up this week H.R. 1023, the Cutting Green Corruption and Taxes Act, to repeal both the EPA greenhouse gas reduction fund and the EPA's recently proposed natural gas tax.

Republicans are leading to unleash American energy and deliver more affordable and reliable energy to all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the hardworking Americans, the taxpayers in this country, know that the rush to green policies of the Biden administration have made energy more expensive.

The Democrats are going to say: Well, oil and gas production is higher than it has ever been in this country.

Yes, it is, but it has nothing to do with the policies coming out of the Biden administration, which started a war on American energy on day one.

There is not a single policy you can point to that the Biden administration has put forward that would increase oil and gas production. In fact, they have done everything to harm oil and gas production in this country.

Oil and gas production increases are due to the policies of the last administration and policies that were set forth over the last decade-- nothing to do with the Biden rush to green policies that have made energy more expensive.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), our majority leader.

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the gentlewoman across the aisle mentioned Ukraine because as the majority leader so succinctly pointed out, Joe Biden's policies of shutting down American energy production is actually funneling money to Vladimir Putin to help him pay for the war in Ukraine, to pay for the Russian Army to go in and kill Ukrainians.

It is hypocritical for them to talk about Ukraine in the light of American energy production.

The gentleman from Washington State, the chair of the Western Caucus has a great resolution that points out all of the things that the Biden administration has done to kill the American energy golden goose laying the golden egg, helping the economy.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse).

Madam Speaker, in World War II, we stopped the Germans in the Battle of the Bulge by running them out of fuel. We can influence the war in Ukraine by stopping the flow of money to Vladimir Putin through his sale of oil and gas by becoming an energy leader once again. America has the ability.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I am prepared to close.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, my friend and colleague from South Carolina, Trey Gowdy, when he served in Congress said this: There is a stubborn thing about facts. It is that they are facts.

This resolution is facts.

Things the Biden administration has done to hurt American independence are costing Americans more of their hard-earned dollars to pay their basic utility bills and transportation fuels to go to work, take their kids to school, to ball games, or to go to their houses of worship.

It is costing them more today to fill their tanks than before the Biden administration took office. In fact, as we pointed out, on day one, the Joe Biden administration started a war on American energy by stopping the Keystone pipeline. He has had fewer lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico than any other President in decades. He had three. President Obama had 20 lease sales.

As the majority leader said, instead of President Biden getting on Air Force One after the invasion of Ukraine when energy prices were going up and we were approaching a congressional election cycle, President Biden, instead of getting on Air Force One and going to the OPEC cartel in Saudi Arabia and begging them to produce more fossil fuels--they claim to hate fossil fuels--but we are going to beg OPEC to produce more so that we can consume more.

Instead of going to Saudi Arabia in the Middle East, President Biden should have got on his plane and gone to North Dakota, or gone to Pennsylvania to the Marcellus shale, or gone to Louisiana, or gone to the Permian Basin in Texas and begged American producers to produce more so that Americans could use American-produced resources.

That is a winning strategy for America: to be energy independent.

I am glad the Democrats on the other side of the aisle are talking about energy production being up right now; it is, but it has nothing to do with the Biden administration policies. There is not a single policy or regulation that the Biden administration has put forward that has done anything to help American producers produce more and increase that production.

All that production is the result of the Trump administration and past administrations that have leased more property and produced more resources. It takes years to produce a well. It takes years to go out and find the resources, develop that well, and get that oil and gas online.

That didn't happen overnight, and it didn't happen in the last 3 or 4 years. It has happened because of policies in the past.

I thank my friend for praising President Trump's ability to unleash American energy potential. That is a winning solution. Americans know it. They know what they were paying at the pump before the Biden administration, and they know what they are paying now. This bill points it out. These are the facts, and the facts are undisputed.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H. Res. 987, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from South Carolina for yielding and for his leadership on energy.

We sure are going to miss your voice. We have a few more months left before you leave Congress, but you have been a great advocate for American energy and for so many other forms of energy like nuclear power.

Today, we are talking about how we can help those families who are struggling. I rise in strong support of H. Res. 987 by Mr. Newhouse and a number of other colleagues because if the policies of the Biden administration were working so well, as some would try to claim, why are families furious that they are paying about 40 percent more when they go to the gas station to fill up their cars? Why are they furious that when they pay their household electricity bills--if they can afford to pay their household electricity bills--they are paying over 30 percent more?

It is because, from day one, when Joe Biden took the oath of office, he issued an all-out assault on American energy.

For anybody who forgot or wants to glaze over it or say it didn't happen or ask what they are talking about, the good news is we actually documented all of those specific actions in this resolution, Mr. Speaker, because it is President Biden who took these actions.

Day one, he canceled the Keystone Pipeline. Now, what does that mean? That would have been about 11,000 American jobs. You know what it also would have meant? It would have meant about 830,000 barrels of oil moving through the Keystone Pipeline.

Now, for the people that are trying to suggest that, oh, that is a good thing--because there are some people that want to just eviscerate American fossil fuels, and President Biden has led that charge, but let's be very clear, Mr. Speaker, President Biden's war on fossil fuels doesn't cover all oil and gas, it only covers American oil and gas.

Maybe that is the most perplexing part of his failed policies that angers people. People have figured this out because they have watched the President get on Air Force One, which, by the way, still runs on jet fuel. They don't have solar panels on the wings of Air Force One. It is not a green plane. He got on Air Force One, and he flew to Saudi Arabia and begged them to produce more oil when he is shutting down production in America.

Do you know what Saudi told him? They said, no, because they are a cartel. They are a monopoly. They are part of OPEC. They want higher prices. It benefits them to have higher prices. So they told President Biden, no, but President Biden should have never even had to go to Saudi.

Again, if President Biden is so against fossil fuels, if they are so immoral as some on the left will suggest, then why is he getting on Air Force One, using fossil fuels, and begging Saudi to produce more when he is shutting it down here?

Again, he canceled lease sales in America. It is documented here in the resolution we are voting on today. We didn't do that. Nobody else did it but Joe Biden. He is the one who canceled lease sales.

President Obama actually had lease sales. President Trump had lease sales. As my colleague from South Carolina pointed out, production today--if you want to brag about production, that is great, because oil production today is a result of investments made 5 and 10 years ago.

I represent parts of the Gulf of Mexico, home to some of the best oil reserves in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Some of these rigs, if you go out to a platform in the Gulf, they can produce over 100,000 barrels a day, but you don't just plop one down and start producing 100,000 barrels today.

If you get a lease today, you have to pay millions of dollars for it. You can't because Joe Biden canceled lease sales, but if you got a lease, you then have the luxury of going out and finding private investment--because there is no government money like the solar panels and the car batteries. You have to find private money. You might have to find $2 billion to go and fund the oil rig. You build the platform. It is a floating city. It is amazing American technology. And you put it out in the Gulf of Mexico 60 miles offshore maybe drilling 12,000 feet below the surface.

Then you have to go back to the Department and get more permits. You have to get permits for seismic, which you cannot get today, by the way. You have to get permits to put pipelines and subsurface infrastructure, which are almost impossible to get today because the Biden administration doesn't want production.

You do all of those things, and you invest all of those billions of dollars of private money, and if that well happens to produce, then maybe 5 to 10 years later it gets the first drop of oil that comes out of the ground and starts producing.

Well, again, that happened years ago, so I am glad people are taking credit for it today. It didn't happen today. It didn't happen when Joe Biden took the oath of office because Joe Biden took the steps to crush it, killing pipelines, killing leases on new production, killing the ability to get permits to go out and develop leases that you paid millions of dollars to the Federal Government for.

That is what Joe Biden did.

It is documented right here.

But what he did worse after he killed American production--if this was all about purity, and this was all about just protecting the world from fossil fuels, that would have been it. But that is not what it is about. It is a war on American energy because, again, he went to Saudi to beg them to produce more oil when he just did a virtual ban on LNG exports.

Do you know who that benefited? It crushed American jobs here. You already saw some decimated jobs and canceled major, major multibillion- dollar projects in America. Do you know who it emboldens, what Joe Biden did? It emboldens Vladimir Putin.

Putin is making billions of dollars a month--not a year, a month. Putin is making billions of dollars selling his oil and natural gas to world markets because of what Joe Biden has done. Because now he has crushed a lot more things like LNG exports, which we were using here in America to help our friends around the world in Europe. We can help our allies. But if Biden gets his way, which so far he has, we can't export here. They still need energy in those other countries.

So where is Europe getting it from? From Russia. So on one hand, Joe Biden is saying, oh, my God, Russia is evil, and he says we need to help Ukraine, but then he is funding Putin's war effort by giving Putin leverage and billions of dollars a month to finance the war against Ukraine.

This is insanity, and it is raising costs on families here at home. The hardworking families of America are sick and tired of Joe Biden's failed energy policies. And they get it. They know what he has done. People on this floor can sit here and deny that any of this stuff happened, but it did. It is well documented in the resolution point by point by point. I wish it was only one or two, and you can go focus on those, but it is over 60 actions he has taken to attack American energy--and, again, only American energy.

Venezuela is getting their ability to produce more.

Iran, the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, who funds Hamas--Hamas, who invaded and attacked barbarically our great friend

Israel, where did they get that money? From Iran. Joe Biden reduced sanctions against Iran, so they can sell their oil on world markets.

Again, if it was about purity and getting rid of oil, then it would be for everybody. He wouldn't have lowered the sanctions against Iran, but he did. Iran can go make billions of dollars a month like Putin is making because of Joe Biden's policies, but here in America you can't get new leases. It is almost impossible to get permits.

You can't do LNG exports because Joe Biden wants to attack American energy. We are sick and tired of it. The American people are sick and tired of it. It is hurting the people that can least afford it. The lowest income families are paying the price for this failed policy. It has got to end. The bills we are bringing to the floor point it out and end it. The Senate should take these bills up. Everybody should vote for it. These should be bipartisan exercises. Everybody should stand up for American energy.

When I look at that beautiful flag right behind you, Madam Speaker, I wonder why would we want to embolden Vladimir Putin with our energy policies when we have enough energy in America to crush Putin, to crush Iran, to crush Venezuela. OPEC would be irrelevant if we just produced more American energy, and the only person standing in the way right now is Joe Biden.

Let's end this madness.

Let's pass this legislation.

Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Graves and Chairman Rouzer for working on this legislation.

Mr. Chair, the reality is that America has been wrapped in a bureaucratic morass. We have been wrapped in red tape. It is impossible to do things like build roads. It is impossible to deploy things like transmission that are critical to help to renew and update the electrical grid. This is because of what we have seen as an extreme agenda out of this White House.

Just yesterday we talked about the fact that the average American family is now spending an additional $1,000 a month just complying with rules and regulations out of this administration.

Mr. Chair, I remind you, this is the administration that said they would

not impose additional costs upon any family making less than $400,000 a year. That is exactly what their agenda is doing, whether it is blocking energy production and driving up energy costs or whether it is the shrinkflation you have seen with smaller products at the grocery store or higher utility bills. Every American family is facing this new hidden tax.

What Chairman Graves and Chairman Rouzer have done is they have brought together a bill that brings common sense to the Clean Water Act process.

I represent south Louisiana. We live at the bottom of one of the largest watersheds in the world and certainly the largest watershed in the United States. We go from Montana to New York to Canada and drain all of this area. Everybody's discharge, everybody's runoff, comes to our State.

Do you really think I would have an interest in dirtier water being at the bottom of the watershed, being in the area that has the greatest commercial fisheries in the continental United States and one of the biggest recreational fishing destinations in this country?

No, it doesn't make any sense.

What this legislation does is help to streamline the process. I thank the chairman for working with us to include a provision that codifies the general NPDES permits that would simply require notice if the general permit is not going to be revised. It simply lets the applicant know or the existing permit holder know if it is not going to be reissued or renewed. This is another one that helps to improve the legal process.

Mr. Chairman, I actually met with John Kerry and Brian Deese, White House officials under the Biden administration who have both left now, but who brought up to me, while they were working for the White House, they said that we have got to fix this judicial review thing. This bill does it.

What it does is something very simple that applies common sense to the situation. It says that it is fine, you can file a lawsuit if you have a problem with the decision that was made. However, first you have to try to participate and resolve your issue in the public comment process, in the public participation process, rather than waiting for the record of decision, by standing out there on the outside filing a lawsuit just as a delay tactic. These are not helpful tactics. On the contrary, these are malicious tactics. I appreciate the inclusion of that because that moves it in the right direction.

Look, in closing, Mr. Chairman, this entire bill builds upon the incredible work that was done in the revisions or the improvements in the modernization of the National Environmental Policy Act that President Biden signed into law back in June that simply tries to ensure that we shrink the amount of time and that we shrink the scope of work that is done in looking at environmental assessments and environmental impact statements.

All of this bureaucratic morass, all of this additional cost that is being heaped upon American families, all it is doing is slowing down our economy and giving strategic advantage to countries like China, which is not in our interest.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of this legislation.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, after listening to the gentleman from Florida, I would like a double dose of whatever he is taking.

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, what our amendment does is, it addresses something that I think both Conservatives and Liberals should be excited about. Let me explain.

Under the Inflation Reduction Act, this large, incredibly expensive energy bill, the Congressional Budget Office did an estimate to determine the total amount of subsidies that this legislation would cost the American taxpayers.

Then you have had folks like Goldman Sachs that have come in and done evaluations and determined that that assessment was likely off by a factor of three or even four. Let me say that again. The estimate was off by a factor of three or even four.

What the base text of this legislation does is it provides for an expedited processing or environmental review of Clean Water Act requirements. Our amendment simply says, once you hit that cap of how much the Congressional Budget Office said this bill was going to cost, said the Inflation Reduction Act was going to cost, you no longer get the expedited process strictly for linear infrastructure projects; otherwise, projects like transmission.

If you are a Conservative, you should be supportive because you are simply capping the cost of this project at what the Congressional Budget Office said. If you are a Liberal, you should be supporting this. You are beating up on the bill right now. This caps or stops the effect of that bill, the expedited process, once you hit the cap that you all thought you were voting for.

Mr. Chair, this should be a win-win. This should have bipartisan support. I think that this is an appropriate amendment. I think the amendment ensures that congressional intent is preserved by limiting the cost of these incredibly expensive subsidies at the rate that Members of Congress who supported this legislation believed they were spending.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I listened to the gentlewoman's response, and I guess I am confused. First of all, this amendment does absolutely nothing to affect public participation. It does nothing. It does nothing to affect local input.

This amendment does apply to linear infrastructure, as she noted, things like transmission, but I remind my friend across the aisle, the gentlewoman from California, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

The gentlewoman can't be opposed to the bill, opposed to the underlying bill, and then when this amendment actually stops the expedited authority under this legislation from applying to projects also say that she opposes that.

Does the gentlewoman support the expedited process or does she not? I am very baffled by the comments. Either you oppose the underlying bill or you support the underlying bill. I have heard the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman) both express opposition to the underlying bill.

Let me say it again: What this amendment does, it says that this expedited authority only for linear transmission projects, linear infrastructure projects, it no longer applies once you hit the financial cap that was estimated, the financial score that was estimated by the Congressional Budget Office.

I would think that my friend from California would actually be supportive of this legislation, of this amendment if she is opposed to the underlying bill. It caps, it curtails the use of this expedited authority that I believe Mr. Huffman indicated he believed would result in trashing the environment.

Let me say it again, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you are a fiscal conservative, you should support this amendment because it stops this runaway, excessive subsidy for technologies that have been around for 40, 50 years. It stops the expedited authority for those type of projects. Why we are subsidizing technologies that have been around for 40 or 50 years, I do not understand. Other countries don't in many cases.

Secondly, if you are a Liberal, if you are out there saying that this bill is extreme, you should support this amendment because it no longer allows for the expedited authority once you hit the financial cap.

I ask my friends across the aisle: Do you want to have your cake or do you want to eat it because you only get one choice?

Mr. Chair, I urge support of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.